Today we face a dependency on government largesse for almost every need. Our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government into satisfying their demands. Here are a few examples:

Undeclared wars are commonplace.

Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement.

The economy is overregulated, overtaxed and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system.

Debt is growing exponentially.

The Patriot Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate have resulted in a steady erosion of our 4th Amendment rights.

Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.

The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the international laws flaunted. Once we are financially weakened and militarily challenged, there will be a lot resentment thrown our way.

It’s now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely, without charges or a trial.

Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington.

Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?

Why should there be mandatory sentences—even up to life for crimes without victims—as our drug laws require?

Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?

Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?

Why haven’t we given up on the drug war since it’s an obvious failure and violates the people’s rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem?

Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US?

Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?

Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?

Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?

Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?

Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty?

Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?

Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a “kill list,” including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination?

Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong.

Why is it is claimed that if people won’t or can’t take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?

Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?

Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?

Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?

Why don’t more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?

Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?

Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world great religions.

Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and foreign policy?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?

Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there’s such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do?

"Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that allows the shipment and distribution of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption across state lines. This legislation removes an unconstitutional restraint on farmers who wish to sell or otherwise distribute, and people who wish to consume, unpasteurized milk and milk products."

(a) Sale Allowed- Notwithstanding the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264), and any regulations or other guidance issued under such Act or section, a Federal department, agency, or court may not take any action (such as administrative, civil, criminal, or other actions) that would prohibit, interfere with, regulate, or otherwise restrict the interstate traffic of milk, or a milk product, that is unpasteurized and packaged for direct human consumption, if such restriction is based on the determination that, solely because such milk or milk product is unpasteurized, such milk or milk product is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise in violation of Federal law.

The feds just prosecuted a guy in my state for selling raw milk, and he wasn't even selling it. He invented a new way to do business, something about an association and a co-op, and people could buy/rent their own cow, keep it on his land, and he would make the delivery, but the Feds still shut it down.

"Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that allows the shipment and distribution of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption across state lines. This legislation removes an unconstitutional restraint on farmers who wish to sell or otherwise distribute, and people who wish to consume, unpasteurized milk and milk products."

(a) Sale Allowed- Notwithstanding the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264), and any regulations or other guidance issued under such Act or section, a Federal department, agency, or court may not take any action (such as administrative, civil, criminal, or other actions) that would prohibit, interfere with, regulate, or otherwise restrict the interstate traffic of milk, or a milk product, that is unpasteurized and packaged for direct human consumption, if such restriction is based on the determination that, solely because such milk or milk product is unpasteurized, such milk or milk product is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise in violation of Federal law.

--Andy

I think the bigger question should be why has the Government advocated the drinking of milk, when there are so many negative health effects from it, raw or pasteurized.

john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"

"Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that allows the shipment and distribution of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption across state lines. This legislation removes an unconstitutional restraint on farmers who wish to sell or otherwise distribute, and people who wish to consume, unpasteurized milk and milk products."

(a) Sale Allowed- Notwithstanding the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264), and any regulations or other guidance issued under such Act or section, a Federal department, agency, or court may not take any action (such as administrative, civil, criminal, or other actions) that would prohibit, interfere with, regulate, or otherwise restrict the interstate traffic of milk, or a milk product, that is unpasteurized and packaged for direct human consumption, if such restriction is based on the determination that, solely because such milk or milk product is unpasteurized, such milk or milk product is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise in violation of Federal law.

--Andy

unpasteurized milk is way better for you,man i sure do miss drinking it

Phatscotty wrote:The feds just prosecuted a guy in my state for selling raw milk, and he wasn't even selling it. He invented a new way to do business, something about an association and a co-op, and people could buy/rent their own cow, keep it on his land, and he would make the delivery, but the Feds still shut it down.

Phatscotty wrote:The feds just prosecuted a guy in my state for selling raw milk, and he wasn't even selling it. He invented a new way to do business, something about an association and a co-op, and people could buy/rent their own cow, keep it on his land, and he would make the delivery, but the Feds still shut it down.

The man should have said goodbye a long time ago. He's been clinging on to a leadership cult of libertarianism that served no good to the ideology that he should have advanced. He'll always be tied to the Republicans, and he's too closely associated with the racism and homophobia sent out when he was pushing for early libertarian ideals.

His era should have been past a decade ago, rather than having modern libertarians try to make excuses for why they still support a dude who stood for the bassist racism, but doesn't really mean it any more.

Hopefully, the next generation of Libertarian thought won't be weighed down by his nonsense.

Symmetry wrote:The man should have said goodbye a long time ago. He's been clinging on to a leadership cult of libertarianism that served no good to the ideology that he should have advanced. He'll always be tied to the Republicans, and he's too closely associated with the racism and homophobia sent out when he was pushing for early libertarian ideals.

His era should have been past a decade ago, rather than having modern libertarians try to make excuses for why they still support a dude who stood for the bassist racism, but doesn't really mean it any more.

Hopefully, the next generation of Libertarian thought won't be weighed down by his nonsense.

First paragraph: agreed

2nd paragraph: agreed

3rd paragraph: There won't be a next generation, Libertarianism is dead. Any rebellion by Libertarian racist, homophobes will be chalked up to homegrown terrorism and therefore, Libertarians will be known as terrorists.

Libertarians are screaming for secession...they are notorious dividers and incredulous. Libertarians hate progress and are shallow, xenophobic hate mongers who know nothing about true vision OR prosperity! Time to wake up!

Army of GOD wrote:I joined this game because it's so similar to Call of Duty.

Lootifer wrote:Ooooh I have one which I reckon Ron Paul would be proud:

Why does a fairly politically active forum focus on two very minor questions when there are far more relevant and interesting points emphasise?

Ones I like:

- Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?

- Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?

- Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?

One i'm not sold on:

- Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty?

Mainly because I dont think we, as humans, should pursue freedom above all else. I think we would be better served pursuing fairness (which shouldnt be mistaken as equality).

Freedom (and equality) both come at a cost. Pursuing fairness only punishes those who seek to be unfair.

Its just a pity that "fairness" is such a namby pamby damn word. HTFU Fairness, HTFU.

Indeed, and Paul came to a reasonable degree of fairness after a long career playing on peoples' fears of government empowering non-whites. Like it or not, that was his base- fear of the government attacking the status-quo. TGD I think holds the honours for acknowldging that libertarianism has a nasty history vis-a-vis Ron Paul's cult status, while pushing for the more legitimate parts of distrust of government.

For every TGD, however, we have a Scotty, still tied to the old Ron Paul homophobia.

You may agree with fair-sided speeches coming from the lips of Libertarian whack jobs, but let's not be so incredulous as not to see the truth of what is evolving.

The Elite built this system...not the poor. No need to be fair here, this is simple Darwinian philosophy: survival.

Serve your overlords or perish. Quite simple really. They have all the cards stacked in their favor and they are busy allocating the nation's and world's resources as they deem necessary towards their survival. The poor do not fit into the equation...they just get in the way and are annoying.

Behold the end of civilization...thanks to Ron Paul and his libertarian-zombie cult!

Army of GOD wrote:I joined this game because it's so similar to Call of Duty.

You may agree with fair-sided speeches coming from the lips of Libertarian whack jobs, but let's not be so incredulous as not to see the truth of what is evolving.

The Elite built this system...not the poor. No need to be fair here, this is simple Darwinian philosophy: survival.

Serve your overlords or perish. Quite simple really. They have all the cards stacked in their favor and they are busy allocating the nation's and world's resources as they deem necessary towards their survival. The poor do not fit into the equation...they just get in the way and are annoying.

Behold the end of civilization...thanks to Ron Paul and his libertarian-zombie cult!

You see, this is the kind of wing-nut criticism of libertarianism that does little good. Yeah, most libertarians in the US are essentially a political wing of the Republican party while they pretend to be non-partisan, and yes, they're pretty radically right wing on any sane person's scale, but hopefully post Kim-Rong Paul they'll shift back toward a reasoned critique of government, and away from Goldfinger-esque politics.

You may agree with fair-sided speeches coming from the lips of Libertarian whack jobs, but let's not be so incredulous as not to see the truth of what is evolving.

The Elite built this system...not the poor. No need to be fair here, this is simple Darwinian philosophy: survival.

Serve your overlords or perish. Quite simple really. They have all the cards stacked in their favor and they are busy allocating the nation's and world's resources as they deem necessary towards their survival. The poor do not fit into the equation...they just get in the way and are annoying.

Behold the end of civilization...thanks to Ron Paul and his libertarian-zombie cult!

You see, this is the kind of wing-nut criticism of libertarianism that does little good. Yeah, most libertarians in the US are essentially a political wing of the Republican party while they pretend to be non-partisan, and yes, they're pretty radically right wing on any sane person's scale, but hopefully post Kim-Rong Paul they'll shift back toward a reasoned critique of government, and away from Goldfinger-esque politics.

Creepers was just attacking and smearing what he does not understand. It's a common trait with people who are hate filled, constantly judge everything by race/gender/class, and trapped in a victim mentality.

per your extremely inaccurate claims about Libertarians being radically right wing on any persons sanity scale, I'm not sure you are remotely qualified to make such a statement (as with everything you say in your obsession with America).

Examples: Does the Libertarian position on drugs fall in line with Republican policies? How about foreign policy? Military spending and immigration? Why do Republicans seem to hate Ron Paul as much if not more than Democrats????

If you would like to begin learning about Libertarians, it would be a good idea to start with understanding "Liberty" Let us know when you are done with chapter 1. But first you have to start using your mind, rather than letting your feelings do your thinking, and you need to do something about the hatred you carry because it doesn't let you think straight. If you were thinking straight, you would be able to make a point without resorting to name calling.

You may agree with fair-sided speeches coming from the lips of Libertarian whack jobs, but let's not be so incredulous as not to see the truth of what is evolving.

The Elite built this system...not the poor. No need to be fair here, this is simple Darwinian philosophy: survival.

Serve your overlords or perish. Quite simple really. They have all the cards stacked in their favor and they are busy allocating the nation's and world's resources as they deem necessary towards their survival. The poor do not fit into the equation...they just get in the way and are annoying.

Behold the end of civilization...thanks to Ron Paul and his libertarian-zombie cult!

You see, this is the kind of wing-nut criticism of libertarianism that does little good. Yeah, most libertarians in the US are essentially a political wing of the Republican party while they pretend to be non-partisan, and yes, they're pretty radically right wing on any sane person's scale, but hopefully post Kim-Rong Paul they'll shift back toward a reasoned critique of government, and away from Goldfinger-esque politics.

Creepers was just attacking and smearing what he does not understand. It's a common trait with people who are hate filled, constantly judge everything by race/gender/class, and trapped in a victim mentality.

per your extremely inaccurate claims about Libertarians being radically right wing on any persons sanity scale, I'm not sure you are remotely qualified to make such a statement (as with everything you say in your obsession with America).

Examples: Does the Libertarian position on drugs fall in line with Republican policies? How about foreign policy? Military spending and immigration? Why do Republicans seem to hate Ron Paul as much if not more than Democrats????

If you would like to begin learning about Libertarians, it would be a good idea to start with understanding "Liberty" Let us know when you are done with chapter 1. But first you have to start using your mind, rather than letting your feelings do your thinking, and you need to do something about the hatred you carry because it doesn't let you think straight. If you were thinking straight, you would be able to make a point without resorting to name calling.

I think much of your problem in relating to the perceived issues surrounding libertarianism are kind of tied to the old guard surrounding Ron Paul. The newlsletters are kind of a big issue whichever way you cut it- either it's not stuff Paul actually believed, but was designed to appeal to his base, or it's stuff that he believes still, but won't acknowledge now that it's uncomfortable.

The Libertarians face a similar problem to the Republican party. So long entwined with the politics of hate, how to get the economic message across? Don't forget, Scotty, that you've been the prophet of gaymagedon on same sex marriage while saying that it's all about the economy.

ron paul was like 80 or something. give the guy a break. i'm sure he stepped out because he's ready to buy an rv and do some traveling. not because he believes that his message is wrong.

i think the guy meant well, no matter what the letters said. kkk is associated with republican, black panther democrat. every group has a base they associate with. as it is, there are only 2 sides to be on. so of course if it's not your side, then it's the wrong one. i think there's more to it than just these letters that's got you all mad and hating on the guy. barrack is also associated with racist groups like that church he was involved with. and heck mitt was republican, so we know he's racist right?

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:ron paul was like 80 or something. give the guy a break. i'm sure he stepped out because he's ready to buy an rv and do some traveling. not because he believes that his message is wrong.

i think the guy meant well, no matter what the letters said. kkk is associated with republican, black panther democrat. every group has a base they associate with. as it is, there are only 2 sides to be on. so of course if it's not your side, then it's the wrong one. i think there's more to it than just these letters that's got you all mad and hating on the guy. barrack is also associated with racist groups like that church he was involved with. and heck mitt was republican, so we know he's racist right?

this

Those guys are just trolling. They are attacking him and lying about him because they think it annoys me and they get off on trying to get a rise out of me (even though it has never worked and never will!) Ron Paul did not write anything in that letter, and their tactic is a true testament to perpetrating disgusting evil and exploiting the issue of racism against a man who was just trying to save them from the fiscal cliff and their children from debt slavery. So shame on them. The next generation will know who was right, and they will not forgive the Progressives (in BOTH parties) for knowingly and purposefully enslaving them to an inescapable debt before they were even born.

Btw, KKK was founded by Democrats, back when they were mad the Republicans took away their slaves. Make sure you get that one right in the future.

Ron Paul retired from Congress because of his age. I'm pretty disappointed because he finally got on the committee that deals with the Federal Reserve, and at least got as far as he could go concerning that, but I also feel strongly that too many Americans do not deserve Ron Paul. There are too many people stabbing Liberty in the back, and this is just them twisting the blade.

We are already over the fiscal cliff whether we are willing to admit it or not, just let it be known that there was a large group of Americans who tried to prevent it, and Ron Paul was our leader in that effort for the last decade.

This is how Ron Paul will be remembered

"The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when well-intentioned—the results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds."

Phatscotty wrote:Those guys are just trolling. They are attacking him and lying about him because they think it annoys me and they get off on trying to get a rise out of me (even though it has never worked and never will!)

Symmetry wrote:The man should have said goodbye a long time ago. He's been clinging on to a leadership cult of libertarianism that served no good to the ideology that he should have advanced. He'll always be tied to the Republicans, and he's too closely associated with the racism and homophobia sent out when he was pushing for early libertarian ideals.

His era should have been past a decade ago, rather than having modern libertarians try to make excuses for why they still support a dude who stood for the bassist racism, but doesn't really mean it any more.

Hopefully, the next generation of Libertarian thought won't be weighed down by his nonsense.

Says the guy who spends his life posting on a Risk forum. When you make a contribution to society that amounts to 1% of what Mr. Paul did, let me know.I rarely dip in name calling but only an ignorant person makes statements like those.

"His era should have been past a decade ago" What sort of statement is that? 8 years ago he almost single-handedly brought down the establishment in the Republican Party. His influence in the past decade of U.S politics has been astronomical.